10:23 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 21:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Putting this back on the list because you make some good points and this
is a good discussion.
>
> That's because it's not always a technical issue. It's about choice.
> Default does not mean "this has to be installed". It's just a
default.
> If I don't like the default, I should be given the option of installing
> an alternative. And that is without needing to download another large
> ISO after the fact because one didn't realize that KDE wasn't included
> in Core anymore.
>
I dont think you read my previous mails completely. Let me explain
this once more
today fedora core is 4+1 cds. if you limit fedora core to the
defaults and have it in 1 or 2 cds, you can have fedora extras or a
subset of it on the rest of the cds. so the totally number of CD's you
have to download as a KDE user still remains the same. Morever by
With you so far, but I have an issue I'll discuss below.
limiting fedora core to the default others who are satisfied with
the
defaults and dont want to make choice initially either due to
ignorance or due to lack of knowledge would be happy to stick with
what they get. the rest download what they want and install what they
want from fedora extras and elsewhere
You still have the choice. the choices only increase with the
formation of fedora extras.
If the Core install CDs give you an option to install from the Extras
CDs at _install_ time, and you have the choice to not accept the
default, then I could be OK with that.
However, my main concern with moving KDE to Extras is not ISO
organization. It's more of a maintainership issue. This whole thread
started because some packages were removed from Core, and then the
community found out that quite a few of those packages were orphaned.
KDE is a large package to maintain both because of it's code size and
it's large user base. Someone from the community maybe well be able to
do the job, but right now KDE is released and maintained as a part of
Core. It has a maintainer, it's part of the daily, weekly, whatever
builds and it probably gets at least some QA testing.
I realize that Fedora is officially an unsupported distribution, but the
fact remains that the kind folks at Red Hat still work on this quite a
bit. If it's moved to Extras and needs a new maintainer (which may not
be the case), how quickly will it be picked up? Who knows?
fedora core however has a defined goal. its called "core" for a reason
and all I am asking for is for the fedora project to implement that
goal for FC4. Fedora installer should make it easy for anyone to
install updates or add repositories and manage to have atleast the
same software before the formation of fedora extras
Could you kindly point me to where the "defined goal of including only
defaults" is stated? I can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact, I find
statements all over the Fedora webpage that are contrary to that:
From: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/
"The goal of The Fedora Project is to work with the Linux community to
build a complete, general purpose operating system exclusively from open
source software."
and
"Fedora Core is intended to be a logical upgrade path for previous users
of Red Hat Linux whose needs are consistent with the objectives of the
Fedora Project."
From: http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html
"Include a range of popular packages, beyond those included in Red Hat's
commercially supported products. (Limited, of course, to packages that
Red Hat can legally provide; also limited to quality packages as defined
by our standards.)"
I see nothing about Core only containing defaults. Maybe I'm missing it
somewhere. Do you have a link to it? I'm not saying it's not a decent
goal to have, but that I just can't find it anywhere.
If all you want is to reorganize the ISOs so that all the default
options can be on 1 or 2 CDs, that's fine with me. As long as the
installer has the option of installing from the "non-default" CDs as
well.
josh
10:47 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:23:12 -0600, Josh Boyer
<jwboyer(a)jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 21:28 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
Putting this back on the list because you make some good points and this
is a good discussion.
Ok thanks
If the Core install CDs give you an option to install from the
Extras
CDs at _install_ time, and you have the choice to not accept the
default, then I could be OK with that.
I would very much want this to be supported in the installer. adding
repositories and selecting packages from the extras and alternatives
repo including the ability to install them from kickstart would
satisfy everyone I believe.
If anyone still has any other problems with fedora core only /only/
the defaults I would like to hear about it
However, my main concern with moving KDE to Extras is not ISO
organization. It's more of a maintainership issue.
valid concern. I already answered this one too to a limited extend .
here is a more detailed answer.
You might be well aware that kde-redhat.sf.net project has existed for
quite sometime and is maintained in a active manner. when fedora
extras policy for including packages, redhat or the other members in
the community can ask these people and other upstream KDE developers
to engage themselves with Redhat. one of the previous concerns with
them was that Redhat was making modifications to KDE that was
crippling the user experience for KDE ( I am not making that
accusation. it just already exists). By moving these into extras and
actively inviting the community, it is likely that upstream KDE
developers and others would see this as an oppurtunity to build
packages and provide a better experience for KDE users on fedora.
one of the other benefits of having KDE and other such non default
packages outside fedora core is that the amount of software a typical
end users installs on his/her system is reduced. ideally someone would
step up to make anaconda installer have a minimal setup too. in
essence this improves security and increases maintainability.
Fedora has a stated policy of staying close with upstream. so package
updates dont just include security and bug fixes but also introduces
new features. a typical fedora user usually gigabytes of updates
because there is no easy way to stay conservative and ignore packages
containing new features. I also suggest this capability be introduced
in pup and its command line variants too in FC4.
Could you kindly point me to where the "defined goal of
including only
defaults" is stated? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
To be honest I did look for this in the website too but couldnt find
it. It seems to be more of a implicit policy from reading through the
previous discussions in this list. feel free to correct me otherwise
--
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram
11:24 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 22:17 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:23:12 -0600, Josh Boyer
> If the Core install CDs give you an option to install from the Extras
> CDs at _install_ time, and you have the choice to not accept the
> default, then I could be OK with that.
I would very much want this to be supported in the installer. adding
repositories and selecting packages from the extras and alternatives
repo including the ability to install them from kickstart would
satisfy everyone I believe.
Agreed.
Fedora Core and Fedora Extras (maybe even alternatives) could still be
packaged together in a DVD ISO for those that want "one ISO to rule them
all". So maybe given that, we could look at reorganizing the CD ISOs as
you suggested.
>
> However, my main concern with moving KDE to Extras is not ISO
> organization. It's more of a maintainership issue.
valid concern. I already answered this one too to a limited extend .
here is a more detailed answer.
You might be well aware that kde-redhat.sf.net project has existed for
quite sometime and is maintained in a active manner. when fedora
extras policy for including packages, redhat or the other members in
the community can ask these people and other upstream KDE developers
to engage themselves with Redhat. one of the previous concerns with
them was that Redhat was making modifications to KDE that was
crippling the user experience for KDE ( I am not making that
accusation. it just already exists). By moving these into extras and
actively inviting the community, it is likely that upstream KDE
developers and others would see this as an oppurtunity to build
packages and provide a better experience for KDE users on fedora.
Hm.. I seemed to have missed where you mentioned the kde-redhat.sf.net
project earlier. That does make me a bit less apprehensive.
I'd still be concerned if KDE was declared as an Extras package, but I
can see some reasoning behind it. Who knows, maybe KDE could be the
"ultimate test" of whether Extras will really work.
one of the other benefits of having KDE and other such non default
packages outside fedora core is that the amount of software a typical
end users installs on his/her system is reduced. ideally someone would
step up to make anaconda installer have a minimal setup too. in
essence this improves security and increases maintainability.
Agreed.
Fedora has a stated policy of staying close with upstream. so package
updates dont just include security and bug fixes but also introduces
new features. a typical fedora user usually gigabytes of updates
because there is no easy way to stay conservative and ignore packages
containing new features. I also suggest this capability be introduced
in pup and its command line variants too in FC4.
I personally like the fact that Fedora stays close to upstream. It's
almost necessary given the release cycle that it has. But maybe a
community driven bug-fixes project could fill the gap. Or maybe that's
not realistic. Just theorizing here.
> Could you kindly point me to where the "defined goal of including only
> defaults" is stated? I can't seem to find it anywhere.
To be honest I did look for this in the website too but couldnt find
it. It seems to be more of a implicit policy from reading through the
previous discussions in this list. feel free to correct me otherwise
No need to correct anyone. It's potentially a good goal. I just
couldn't find it stated anywhere. Apologies if it came off a bit harsh.
josh
9:36 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sunday 23 January 2005 00:23, Josh Boyer wrote:
KDE is a large package to maintain both because of it's code size
and
it's large user base. Someone from the community maybe well be able
to do the job, but right now KDE is released and maintained as a part
of Core. It has a maintainer, it's part of the daily, weekly,
whatever builds and it probably gets at least some QA testing.
For what it's worth, I always nuke the KDE packages sent from Core with
the kde-redhat.sf.net packages. I've been an avid KDE user from the
beginning, but still, on occasion use GNOME apps (xchat being the most
used).
I'm not opposed to moving KDE onto another ISO. As a more advanced user
of KDE, I wouldn't be that opposed to just throwing it all out because
I'm just gonna hookup with Rex's packages anyway.
That said, if this is seriously being considered, then I would recommend
that GNOME get fair treatment: put onto its own ISO. Maybe the base
GNOME/Gtk libs to get up2date, anaconda, system-config-*, blah blah
working should be on the first CD. The rest of it (gnobots2, etc.) can
be piled onto another ISO, which one can elect not to install.
Another thing to consider: users with bandwidth. One CD bootstrap,
mainlibs in place, then yum, apt, or smart the rest of it.
have fun,
--
-jeff
10:02 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:36:22 +0800, Jeff Pitman <symbiont(a)berlios.de> wrote:
Another thing to consider: users with bandwidth. One CD bootstrap,
mainlibs in place, then yum, apt, or smart the rest of it.
I think the network install mode of anaconda that is already there
serves a similar enough purpose for anyone who wants to use a network
as part of the install process. And don't forget about the much
maligned mininal install option.
A more advanced one CD bootstrap that gives you a usable desktop is a
tough target to meet. I don't want to see the rescue environment
being ditched to make room for a 1 CD desktop install. I think its
vitally important to keep a usable rescue mode available as part of
every self-contained piece of install media that's going to be
offered.
-jef"the damn weatherman promised me a lull in the snow...wheres my
damn lull..."spaleta
10:08 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 23:02 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
A more advanced one CD bootstrap that gives you a usable desktop is
a
tough target to meet. I don't want to see the rescue environment
being ditched to make room for a 1 CD desktop install. I think its
vitally important to keep a usable rescue mode available as part of
every self-contained piece of install media that's going to be
offered.
Not to start a completely different flame war, but... Ubuntu seems to
manage both a single CD install and a usable rescue mode. I have not
actually used Ubuntu, so I don't know exactly *how* usable the rescue
mode is, but the docs indicate it's there and can do a thing or two. ;-)
11:05 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On 23 Jan 2005, at 05:08, Sean Middleditch wrote:
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 23:02 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> A more advanced one CD bootstrap that gives you a usable desktop is a
> tough target to meet. I don't want to see the rescue environment
> being ditched to make room for a 1 CD desktop install. I think its
> vitally important to keep a usable rescue mode available as part of
> every self-contained piece of install media that's going to be
> offered.
Not to start a completely different flame war, but... Ubuntu seems to
manage both a single CD install and a usable rescue mode. I have not
actually used Ubuntu, so I don't know exactly *how* usable the rescue
mode is, but the docs indicate it's there and can do a thing or two.
;-)
Ubuntu for x86 is two CD's: one is x86 install and the other one is x86
Live CD. I'm not 100% sure, but I think only x86 Live CD can be used as
a rescue CD but x86 install not.
12:13 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 06:05 +0100, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
Ubuntu for x86 is two CD's: one is x86 install and the other one
is x86
Live CD. I'm not 100% sure, but I think only x86 Live CD can be used as
a rescue CD but x86 install not.
No, I wasn't talking about the Live CD. Further reading indicates that
the rescue mode is only part of the Hoary pre-release CDs, and not part
of the stable Warty release, which is the only CD I have to play with.
That said, I'm pretty sure the secret is to just keep cutting down the
distro enough. Jeff is afraid that a one-CD install disk won't leave
from for a rescue - that would happen only if you can manage to get a
good desktop install into ~650MB but no less. Evidence indicates that
you can in fact get smaller than that with a desktop install.
I suppose one of Ubuntu's tricks is to just not include KDE, though...
(They include it in Universe or Supported, which are similar to Fedora's
Extras, only split between unofficial and official extra packages,
respectively.)
9:50 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Hi,
I think that one of the problems is the dependency issue. I've been
using RedHat/Fedora since RH 3 and one thing that makes me sad is that
every other distro seems to have a "minimum/firewall like" install and
the 'minimum' install for fcX is 700Mb...
I'd like to use fc in a CF-card-based installation but was nto
possible due to this size.
I know we have 1Gb CF now but is still expensive.
10:48 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 11:50 -0400, mbneto wrote:
I think that one of the problems is the dependency issue. I've been
using RedHat/Fedora since RH 3 and one thing that makes me sad is that
every other distro seems to have a "minimum/firewall like" install and
the 'minimum' install for fcX is 700Mb...
well if you try a bit harder you get 300Mb though...
still not really small (but if you remove the locales and man pages from
that it might get there somewhat)
11:39 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 05:48:23PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 11:50 -0400, mbneto wrote:
>
>
> I think that one of the problems is the dependency issue. I've been
> using RedHat/Fedora since RH 3 and one thing that makes me sad is that
> every other distro seems to have a "minimum/firewall like" install and
> the 'minimum' install for fcX is 700Mb...
well if you try a bit harder you get 300Mb though...
still not really small (but if you remove the locales and man pages from
that it might get there somewhat)
With xen it could make more sense again to minimize installations and then
have smaller images where only few services run. E.g. an image just
for mysql, one with bind, ...
While kickstart is normally very good for these things, question still
comes up if it would be important enough to again put some more selections
into the GUI-installer parts for this.
greetings,
Florian La Roche
5:25 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Hi,
Can you give me a list of those "uneeded" packages ? :)
After the minimum install I removed a few packages but nothing really
significant (in terms of space at least).
-mb
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:48:23 +0100, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv(a)redhat.com> wrote:
well if you try a bit harder you get 300Mb though...
still not really small (but if you remove the locales and man pages from
that it might get there somewhat)
9:15 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Ok. But since I was not able to remove myself (due to
dependencies...) the packages to this ~300Mb I was hoping I could get
(off list) the rpm -qa to compare with mine and simply remove the ones
missing..
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:55:04 +0530, Rahul Sundaram
<rahulsundaram(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 19:25:39 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you give me a list of those "uneeded" packages ? :)
thats not really an easy thing to do.
--
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram
9:39 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:15:58 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ok. But since I was not able to remove myself (due to
dependencies...) the packages to this ~300Mb I was hoping I could get
(off list) the rpm -qa to compare with mine and simply remove the ones
missing..
I had the impression arjan seems to have to just highlighted that its
possible and not that he has a list of packages ready to send you.
--
Regards,
Rahul Sundaram
3:11 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:33PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:15:58 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok. But since I was not able to remove myself (due to
> dependencies...) the packages to this ~300Mb I was hoping I could get
> (off list) the rpm -qa to compare with mine and simply remove the ones
> missing..
I had the impression arjan seems to have to just highlighted that its
possible and not that he has a list of packages ready to send you.
actually I do have a list of packages; I'll send it tomorrow when I power
the box that has them on ;)
7:26 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 22:11 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 09:09:33PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:15:58 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok. But since I was not able to remove myself (due to
> > dependencies...) the packages to this ~300Mb I was hoping I could get
> > (off list) the rpm -qa to compare with mine and simply remove the ones
> > missing..
>
> I had the impression arjan seems to have to just highlighted that its
> possible and not that he has a list of packages ready to send you.
actually I do have a list of packages; I'll send it tomorrow when I power
the box that has them on ;)
see attached list
11:12 a.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:50:40 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think that one of the problems is the dependency issue. I've
been
using RedHat/Fedora since RH 3 and one thing that makes me sad is that
every other distro seems to have a "minimum/firewall like" install and
the 'minimum' install for fcX is 700Mb...
This comes up frequently, and i pretty much say the same thing
everytime. So everyone whose seen my rant about this before.. just hit
delete now.
What is installed in a minimal install is controlled to a great extent
by the comps.xml file that defines the groupings of packages. A
community of interested users could easily play with rearranging the
comps.xml file and produce an alternative minimal install to test and
refine. Its not difficult to recreate installable iso images that use
a different comps.xml file. The fact is making minimal more minimal
is a low priority issue for the current developers. Developers have
finite time and you can't blame them for having a set or priorities.
But this issue is something willing and motivated community could hack
at and experiment with in parallel while Core development continues.
Once the community has a comps.xml that impliments a smaller minimal
install without impacting the desktop or workstation install types...
it could be presented for review and consideration. But its going to
take non-zero work from people who is motivated to making the minimal
install smaller. The sooner people in the community who are
interestied start poking at editing the comps.xml file anaconda
uses... the sooner interested people can test the changes.
Some people in the community have been focusing on creating a smaller
minimal install by using externally defined kickstart files. But if
you want anaconda's native 'minimal' install to be smaller.. people
will have to start poking at the comps.xml file anaconda uses to see
if things can be reorganized.
-jef
4:46 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Le dimanche 23 janvier 2005 à 12:12 -0500, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:50:40 -0400, mbneto <mbneto(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think that one of the problems is the dependency issue. I've been
> using RedHat/Fedora since RH 3 and one thing that makes me sad is that
> every other distro seems to have a "minimum/firewall like" install and
> the 'minimum' install for fcX is 700Mb...
This comes up frequently, and i pretty much say the same thing
everytime. So everyone whose seen my rant about this before.. just hit
delete now.
[snip]
The fact is if I want to set up an Oracle box I'll need a minimal
install - just not the one you think of, because it'll be defined by
Oracle needs.
In the same way if I setup a spam filtering box or a pvr box I'll do
minimal installs - but again these won't be the same as the first one.
The problem is not the comps.xml groups. You won't find a common minimal
group for all those wildly different uses (that's why the current
minimal install has grown - to encompass everything). The problem is
making easier for different people to define the minimal sets they want
to use (and not lock them in a setup that tries to be everything for
everyone)
And I know it's a PITA to support - you just can't assume everyone will
have more or less the same setup. But since lots of people end up
working around all the well-meaned attempts to have everyone go the same
path, the support problems are the same, you only piss off people that
have to fight obviously arbitrary installation decisions.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
5:23 p.m.
New subject: rawhide report: 20050121 changes
Hi jef,
I'll try to look at this comps.xml file. Can you provide any extra
info or tips regarding this ?
The "problem" that I find is that there are so many inter dependencies
between packages that I found really hard.
The other day after a 'minimum'install I created a list with rpm -a
and tried to remove unecesseary packages by hand.
I gave up after a lot atempts to remove packages that I don't use but
are necessary for others that I do :(
Since I am newbie at this forgive any naive (ok stupid) remarks, but
would be great to have more packages like php suite where I can select
the features that I need (php-mysql etc) without having to install the
kitchen sink...
- mb
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:12:18 -0500, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What is installed in a minimal install is controlled to a great
extent
by the comps.xml file that defines the groupings of packages. A
community of interested users could easily play with rearranging the
comps.xml file and produce an alternative minimal install to test and
refine. Its not difficult to recreate installable iso images that use
a different comps.xml file. The fact is making minimal more minimal
is a low priority issue for the current developers. Developers have
finite time and you can't blame them for having a set or priorities.
But this issue is something willing and motivated community could hack
at and experiment with in parallel while Core development continues.
Once the community has a comps.xml that impliments a smaller minimal
install without impacting the desktop or workstation install types...
it could be presented for review and consideration. But its going to
take non-zero work from people who is motivated to making the minimal
install smaller. The sooner people in the community who are
interestied start poking at editing the comps.xml file anaconda
uses... the sooner interested people can test the changes.
Some people in the community have been focusing on creating a smaller
minimal install by using externally defined kickstart files. But if
you want anaconda's native 'minimal' install to be smaller.. people
will have to start poking at the comps.xml file anaconda uses to see
if things can be reorganized.
-jef
7036
days inactive
7040
days old
20 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Arjan van de Ven -
Felipe Alfaro Solana -
Florian La Roche -
Jef Spaleta -
Jeff Pitman -
Josh Boyer -
mbneto -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Rahul Sundaram -
Sean Middleditch